Tag Archives: Pedro Nava

As Some Hesitate, Laird Says He Can Win Maldonado’s Seat

I need to say something: I <3 John Laird.

There, I said it. Former Asm. John Laird is neither flashy nor overly charismatic. But when it comes to quietly doing the work of the people, nobody works harder, knows his stuff better, or really understands the budget better than John Laird. And honestly, we really need him in the Senate.

So, as the Calitics editorial board has pointed out before, the Legislature should approve the nomination of Sen. Abel Maldonado to Lt. Governor. And while the race is going to be competitive, Laird has the horses to win the race:

Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat, said Monday that the poll gave him a lead “in the low single digits.” Respondents were asked twice about the theoretical match-up, first near the beginning of the call with pollsters, then again “after every conceivable thing was thrown and him and me both,” Laird said. He said the lead grew slightly after potential negatives were given to respondents. (CapWkly)

This is a winnable race. And a winnable race for a solid progressive that will work his ass off to improve this state. For me, it’s an easy call what you do here. But some see otherwise, saying that it’s too big of a risk, that it gives up too much.  Here’s Asm. Pedro Nava:

I will be voting “no” to confirm state Sen. Abel Maldonado to the second-highest constitutional office in California, a heartbeat from the governor, that of lieutenant governor.

Much has been made of his congenial personality, his friendly demeanor and his one vote to increase the minimum wage. But in order to take Sen. Maldonado’s true measure, you need to examine over 150 votes on issues of great significance to all Californians – laws that impact farmworkers, health care, civil rights, labor, women, consumers, seniors and the environment. (SacBee)

Look, if given the choice, I doubt there are too many people that would vote for Abel Maldonado for dog catcher around here. Yet, that isn’t what this is about. This is a confirmation hearing, not a test of whether you like the guy.  Clearly, progressives aren’t going to like him, but the same was said of Bruce McPherson when he took over the  (arguably more important) SecState gig. The Assembly confirmed him then, including a vote from Asm. Nava. As Sen. Steinberg mentioned last week, this is a vote about whether Maldonado is competent to assume the LG job, and it’s hard to argue that Maldonado is any more or less competent to assume that rather powerless gig than any of the candidates in the race for 2010.

Sen. Maldonado’s votes are bad. Very bad. So, let’s get him out of the Senate where he is casting those votes and into a short stint as LG.

SD-15 needs John Laird. California needs John Laird. A few months of incumbency in a rather banal gig is a risk worth taking. The calculus doesn’t actually seem that hard. Confirm Maldonado, and let’s get to the business of electing Sen. John Laird.

PXP’s Tranquillion Ridge Is Back

The PXP Tranquillion Ridge Oil Project is far from over.  While the first new drilling project since the spill was voted down during the budget fight, Assembly Minority Leader Blakeslee has brought it back through the oh so amazing gut and amend process.  AB 1536, which used to be a bill pertaining to the Public Utilities Commission has been morphed into an oil drilling bill authorizing the Tranquillion Ridge Project.

Now, PXP, the company that wants to explore the ridge, has been doing a bunch of polling showing some level of support for the bill. Pedro Nava, he of the sentencing commission flip-flop, has been on something of a quixotic quest for PXP’s polling data

While we already have oil drilling off our coast (it’s true, drive down the 101 some time), the idea of new drilling isn’t all that popular amongst many environmentalists.  But, support for oil drilling off our coast, whether we like it or not has been growing.  PXP actually has a poll out on it right now.  They aren’t releasing all of their data, and this is causing Asm. Pedro Nava much angst. For some reason he has chosen the question of polling to pursue as his quixotic quest, instead of the underlying issue. I kind of think selective release of polling data stinks, but it is not like his campaign for AG has released all of their polling.  (Speaking of, Asm. Nava, did you poll the sentencing commission?) But the real question is how we manage the growth of the oil rigs and how we actually protect our coast.

The Tranquillion Ridge Project actually originally had the support of many of the Santa Barbara environmental groups, so it is hardly out of the realm of possibility that support could re-emerge. But if this gets done, it needs to be a) ensured that there are the strictest safety & environmental standards and b) that we get something really good for this.

I’m thinking oil severance.  I know the idea of new drilling won’t be popular, and I get that, but if it is going to be shoved down our throats anyway when Garamendi is replaced on the State Lands Commission, how about we take advantage of the situation.  I kind of doubt that we’ll be able to get oil severance for all drilling, but how about we get it for at least this drilling project and set a precedent for the future.

I haven’t really thought this all the way through, so feel free to ridicule the idea.  But it is worth some consideration.

Remember Way Back to 2007 When the Assembly Supported A Sentencing Commission?

Back in 2007, former Assembly member Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View) wrote a Sentencing Commission bill, AB 160.  You can read an analysis of that bill here. Like the current proposal, it had teeth. It didn’t give the Legislature ratification authority. It had wide support of progressives, but not much support from either the Governor or from the Senate. In fact, on the Senate, it got only 10 votes, mostly from progressives like Carole Migden and Shiela Kuehl, but, somewhat suprisingly, also from moderates like Sen. Ron Calderon. Good on you Sen. Calderon.

On the Assembly side, it got 43 votes, including many members who are now protesting the inclusion of a Sentencing Commission today. For example, Asms. Huffman, Ma, Nava, Torrico all voted for the bill. For his part, the other AG candidate, Asm. Ted Lieu apparently was against solid prison reform back in 2007 too.

Now, turn the calendar a few years forward, to about last week. Basically many in the current Assembly Democratic caucus are walking away from a bill they ALREADY supported.

I’m not sure how at least two of these folks square their past votes with their public positions today.  Take Asm. Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), who voted for AB 160 in 2007:

“You essentially would be contracting out your duties as a legislator,”Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, said of the Senate-passed plan. (SacBee 8/25/09)

Or from Asm. Torrico (D-Newark), who also voted for AB 160:

“The notion that the Legislature would not be required to vote on a sentencing commission proposal, I just think it’s real problematic,” Torrico said. (LA Times)

I don’t want to give Asm. Lieu a pass here, as he is also stonewalling good policy here. Yet, how is that removing sentencing from the Legislature was good in 2007 but not today when the crisis is far more acute?  

Could it be that this time it actually has a chance of succeeding?  Back in 2007, Asm. Lieber’s bill didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting through the Senate, let alone to be signed by Governor Toughie McActionStar. It is only today, with the very real possibility of this actually going into law that these legislators are balking at voting for real prison reform.

Sorry, but that smacks of the cynicism that has plagued Sacramento for so long. It is this cynicism that is why our prisons are under a slew of federal court orders and we can’t manage our house. Blame it on fear of the prison guard’s union (CCPOA) or the “law and order” vote or what you will, but the fact is that we need real reform that will allow our prisons to get back to the business for which they were intended: keeping California safe.

If it plays in Kansas, it can play here.  It just requires leaders who are willing to stand up for their own values and for the voters who put them there. This should be past the point of politics now. I know, it’s probably not possible for the Republicans, but I expect more from our Democratic Legislators. Do the right thing for our state and your political fortunes will follow.

CA-35 Update

One of the many flaws of California’s term limits law is that it creates needless conflict and enmity between would-be allies each vying to do their part to make the State a better place, as each candidate is forced to abandon a job they have just barely learned, to campaign for a different job.  Conflicts arise in this perpetual game of musical chairs, accountability is minimal, and activists are left in a jam deciding whom to support.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in AD-35, where Assemblymember Pedro Nava has been termed out, forcing a run at the Attorney General job.  The power vacuum left by Nava’s absence has opened the field for two impressive candidates, both of whom are well-liked in the district: Susan Jordan, Mr. Nava’s wife and co-founder of the California Coastal Protection Network (CCPN) and Vote The Coast, and Das Williams, Santa Barbara City Councilman and longtime community activist through CAUSE as their legislative analyst.  Williams also serves as a national board member of the National Organization for Women, and is on the Peabody Charter School Board.

The Republican banner will be carried by former Santa Barbara County Supervisor Mike Stoker.  However, given the 20-point voter registration advantage favoring Democrats in the district, the winner of the Democratic primary is almost certain to hold this safe Democratic seat.

Most activists here in the Ventura and Santa Barbara areas know each of these individuals well, and have worked with them on multiple issues.  As the race intensifies, it is painful for many to make a choice between them, and many have avoided doing so to date.  I personally have endorsed Mr. Williams, having worked with him on a number of different issues here already in less than a year of local activism, while my contact with Ms. Jordan has been more limited.  Each candidate has amassed a long list of endorsers (in-fighting remains about who exactly has endorsed whom at this point, adding to the confusion), and a large number remain on the fence.  Ms. Jordan’s biggest ally, obviously, is Assemblymember Nava; Mr. Williams, however, counters with the almost equally hard-hitting support of Hannah-Beth Jackson, whom he served as Chief of Staff in the SD-19 2008 election.

On a personal level, there is already significant rancor between the two sides: while both have promised a positive campaign, and neither candidate has made overt attacks on the other, various operatives have been busy attempting to earn support with some negative charges.  Williams is extremely active in the community and had expected to be next in line for the spot; his backers have hinted at nepotism between Nava and Jordan; Jordan backers paint Das as overly ambitious and opportunistic because Williams previously ran unsuccessfully for Supervisor, because of his comparative youth at 34 years of age, and because many say that Williams had told them earlier in the year that he would not run for the seat.  Williams is in his second term on the Santa Barbara City Council, and will be termed out–needlessly adding increased stakes under the guise of “reform” through term limits.

Also an issue in the race is the vaunted PXP drilling at Tranquillon Ridge: during the early days of the proposed deal, Williams backed a variety of local environmental organizations in supporting the deal.  Jordan and Nava were opposed, due to precedent and the belief, later reinforced by various agencies, that the deal’s sunset provision would be unenforceable.  The deal eventually became the famous statewide issue it is today, and it is sure to be a major attack avenue against Mr. Williams by Ms. Jordan.

To date, the race is playing out similar to the Clinton-Obama primary war in a battle between youth/change and experience/responsibility–but with an added wrinkle.  While Mr. Williams is young, he also boasts greater experience in elected office, particularly in the field of balancing budgets, an issue particularly crucial to Assembly candidates.  Mr. Williams has repeatedly referenced Santa Barbara’s continued balanced budgets as proof of his ability to make difficult budget choices in a progressive fashion in a tough economic environment, and contrasted his record in Santa Barbara with that of the legislature in Sacramento (somewhat unfairly, as the SB city council is not hamstrung by a 2/3 rule).  Ms. Jordan, meanwhile, will be running ostensibly (and probably unfairly) to the left of Mr. Williams on environmental issues, will be leveraging her longstanding statewide activism, and will portray herself as something of an outsider to the political process despite her connection with Mr. Nava, while attempting to frame Mr. Williams as a career politician.

It is in this somewhat unpleasant context that the Williams campaign released their surprisingly strong fundraising numbers yesterday evening (the Jordan campaign released its own press release this afternoon.)  While it was expected that Ms. Jordan would outraise Mr. Williams due to greater large-scale institutional support and an earlier head start (including a high-profile fundraiser at the home of Pierce Brosnan), the campaigns are essentially even in terms of fundraising, with each campaign spinning the numbers as coming out in their favor: the Williams campaign is emphasizing Jordan’s $12,000 loan to her own campaign to even up the numbers, while the Jordan campaign is emphasizing its $10,000 advantage in cash on hand.

The full text of the competing press releases follows below the fold:

Local Santa Barbara City Councilman Das Williams Outraises Main Opponent In Campaign for Assembly District 35

Santa Barbara, CA – Showing that local residents are looking for a new kind of elected leader in Sacramento, local Santa Barbara City Councilman Das Williams today reports having raised over $120,000 in his campaign for Assembly District 35 as of the June 30th reporting deadline.  In significantly less time, Das Williams outraised his main opponent Susan Jordan – wife of the District’s current Assemblymember Pedro Nava – who raised $110,000.

Das’ strong financial showing complements his already strong grassroots network and growing list of local endorsers and supporters.  

“Das Williams raised more money than Susan Jordan in just half the time,” said campaign spokesperson Josh Pulliam.  “Loaded with a $12,500 personal loan and strapped with unpaid debt, Susan Jordan’s financial report comes straight out of the same Sacramento playbook that brought us a historic budget crisis.  These financial reports illustrate that voters in the district are ready for change.   As a local councilmember, Das already represents nearly a quarter of the Assembly District, and today’s numbers prove that he’s going to have the necessary resources to mount a successful campaign.”

Das Williams is campaigning to succeed termed-out Assemblymember Pedro Nava.  

Das Williams grew up on the Central Coast and is a product of local public schools. In 2003, Das Williams became the youngest person ever to be elected to the Santa Barbara City Council, and was re-elected in 2007. Das has worked as a teacher, a policy aide for former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson, and a community organizer working to stop the development of a Wal-Mart in Ventura and enact local living wage laws in Santa Barbara and Ventura. Das serves on the Peabody Charter School Board and is a national board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Das received his undergraduate degree from the University of California at Berkeley and holds a graduate degree in Environmental Science & Management from the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Jordan Shows Strong Support for Assembly District 35 Race

“Never before has it been so important that we make fundamental changes to the way of doing business in Sacramento. The voters know that fixing the problems won’t be easy, and it will take someone with experience, integrity and determination to stand up to the special interests,” said Assembly candidate Susan Jordan.  “The people in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties who encouraged me to run have backed up their encouragement with campaign contributions. In my first run for elective office, I am inspired by their early show of support.”

Jordan leads fundraising for the primary election, which will be held June 8, 2010, with an impressive $124,129 raised between January 1 and June 30.  Jordan notes that she is very fiscally conservative, spent little during that period, and has $119,228.07 cash on hand.

Jordan added, “I am deeply honored to have the help of so many local and statewide leaders who have placed their trust in my abilities to get the job done, including Santa Barbara County Supervisor Janet Wolf, Oxnard Mayor Tom Holden, Oxnard City Council members Bryan MacDonald and Dr. Irene Pinkard, Former State Senator Sheila Kuehl, Former Santa Barbara County Supervisor Susan Rose, Former Santa Barbara Mayor Harriet Miller, and many more.”

Jordan is an award-winning environmental leader, a successful business woman, health advocate and mother with 15 years of experience working to protect the coastline of Santa Barbara and Ventura counties – and for all of California.  As a former Chair of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, Jordan tackled regional planning concerns with an analytical and balanced approach.  After leaving her business career, Jordan founded the California Coastal Protection Network (CCPN) in 1999 and serves as its executive director.  CCPN is considered one of the most effective environmental advocacy organizations in the state and Jordan has received numerous awards for her precedent-setting work.

Jordan is being challenged by Das Williams.  Williams initially supported Jordan, and stated in the Santa Barbara Independent that he would not run and that his own personal ambitions would have to take a back seat for the “greater good of the community,” while praising Jordan’s environmental credentials and statewide connections.  Williams and Jordan split largely over the issue of offshore oil drilling, with Williams supporting a proposal to open the coast to new drilling, while Jordan opposed it.  Jordan is leading a statewide coalition of more than 60 groups who oppose the governor’s efforts to approve the first new offshore oil lease in state waters in 40 years.

“As I walk this district, people tell me that they want someone in Sacramento who has life experience and can be trusted to stand up to special interests and address the serious challenges facing our state, our economy and our livelihoods.  This is a responsibility I take to heart. I will not let them down,” said Jordan.

Susan Jordan for Assembly 2010

Ending cash    $119,228.07

Das Williams for Assembly 2010

Ending cash    $108,767.62

Susan Jordan for Assembly 2010

Reporting period    01/01/2009 – 06/30/2009

Contributions from this period    $124,129.00

Expenditures from this period    $11,006.82

Ending cash    $119,228.07

Das Williams for Assembly 2010

Reporting period    01/01/2009 – 06/30/2009

Contributions from this period    $122,656.08

Expenditures from this period    $13,988.46

Ending cash    $108,767.62

Republican challenger Mike Stoker has not filed any reports.

Given the heated nature of the releases even at this early stage, this will an interesting race to watch going forward.

Yes We Can Stop what the LA Times Calls “a Dubious Deal on Offshore Oil Drilling”

At a hearing last week of the California State Lands Commission, which I chair, we passed a resolution critical of an effort to bypass our independent jurisdiction in approving new oil drilling proposals.

An editorial in last weekend’s Los Angeles Times buttresses my position and explains what’s at stake:

“[In late January,] the Lands Commission rightly rejected the plan on a 2-1 vote, and that should have been the end of it. […]

Admittedly, the state could use the money. But that’s not a good enough reason to subvert the authority of the Lands Commission, sell California’s coastline in exchange for empty promises, ignore the wishes of Santa Barbara residents and dismiss the outcome of a long process of analysis and public hearings. The Lands Commission, in fact, was created in 1938 to bring more transparency to the awarding of oil leases after a scandal involving the Department of Finance.”

National and state implications over the flip…

The precedent set by allowing this “dubious deal” to move forward also has dangerous national implications. In comments to a post I wrote last week on the Daily Kos, Linnaeus said something that I think is worth repeating:

“I’m not a Californian, but these resources are treasures for us all. In case I wasn’t clear, yes, protect the coastline.” (minor edits for formatting)

What happens in California has a habit of spreading to other states, and if the proposal moves forward, the Golden State will be on record in support of offshore oil drilling and in favor of bypassing decades-established environmental regulations when Big Oil comes knocking with a quick buck. That’s not a precedent that’s healthy for California’s fragile natural wonders, and it can only serve to undermine environmental protection efforts in other states too.

In a wall post in the Facebook group created in opposition to the Department of Finance proposal, Assemblymember Pedro Nava, a member of the Assembly Coastal Caucus, explains what he expects will happen if the oil lease moves forward:

“We can’t forget this important fact. The Secretary of the Interior is right now evaluating off shore oil lease plans for California. If the PXP deal is approved through the budget, it will mean that the coast of California is for sale and decades of hard work to protect our coast will be compromised. The impacts will be first felt in Santa Barbara and then spread like an oil spill north to Mendocino and south to San Diego. We have worked too hard for too long to allow this to happen.”

And Brian Leubitz on Calitics wrote today of the potential environmental impact of the Department of Finance’s proposal. His words are worth repeating:

“California was, once upon a time, the leader in offshore drilling. In fact, the first submerged oil wells was in the Santa Barbara Channel. Public acceptance can change rapidly when you spill 200,000 gallons of crude oil into the ocean. And change it did.

In many ways, that day in 1969 was the time when the environmental movement came of age.  It had a real, tangible event to show the world of how quickly we can turn a once beautiful strip of coast into a toxic mess. […]

Drill, Baby, Drill is a recipe for disaster in both good and bad economic times. We should not be compromising our goals of a clean and sustainable energy future for a few hundred million dollars.  I’ll be working to provide more depth on this issue, but in the mean time, consider emailing your legislator or joining John Garamendi’s facebook group to support the State Lands Commission’s position against drilling. We simply cannot afford another to turn our backs on 1969, the devastating consequences of a spill are just not worth the price.”

I’m not prepared to see decades of environmental safeguards undermined, and I don’t think you are either. The impact goes far beyond a single oil lease off the coast of Santa Barbara; at stake is a precedent-setting showdown on the legitimacy of environmental protection in the country’s most trendsetting state. We must not catch a wave toward environmental ruin.  

Please, if you live in California, call and e-mail your state legislators and voice your opposition to this deal. They are expected to vote on the issue in a few weeks. And no matter where you live, join our Facebook group and invite your friends. We’ve made good progress in the past week, and with your help, yes we can stop “a dubious deal on offshore oil drilling.”

John Garamendi is the Lieutenant Governor of California, chair of the California State Lands Commission, and a former Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Interior Department. He also sits on the Ocean Protection Council and is the founder of the Clean Seas Coalition.

Thursday Open Thread

• CalSTRS, along with CalPERS, has been a leading voice in the good corporate governance movement. Their next mission: get more women on corporate boards. They did a study, and apparently companies with higher female representation on the board fared better.

• Apparently some folks are mad that the Los Angeles plan, Measure B on the March ballot, to create 400 MW of solar power is using city workers instead of private contractors that do solar installations across the region. Taking a different tack, City controller Laura Chick has come out strongly against the plan, which was backed by Mayor Villaraigosa and Council President Eric Garcetti because cost estimates are very squishy.

• We keep trying to break out from under the thumb of the prison receiver.  This time it is AG Jerry Brown trying to argue it is unnecessary. Apparently, and somewhat laughably, he thinks the state should take control of the situation. The trouble is that we haven’t actually done anything to correct the problems that lead to the receiver’s appointment in the first place.

Our leaders have nobody to blame but themselves on this one. Their lack of courage, with only a few notable exceptions like Gloria Romero, has been exceptional in its cowardice.

• Asm. Pedro Nava loves animals.

• Another one: Apparently the primary fights are set to begin. Asm. Anthony Adams is already getting primary threats from none other than Dick Mountjoy. Yes, the same Dick Mountjoy that lost to DiFi by like 40 points or something. Apparently he has a term left, but hasn’t said anything official. He’ll just wait and see who will devour  Mr. Adams first.  Let the feeding frenzy begin.

• Check the video of Sen. Steinberg talking at the Sacramento Press Club (posted here). Regular readers might be interested in his explanation of the Big 5 meetings at about the 9:30 mark. (h/t CapAlert)

Extremist Republican Tony Strickland Causing Trouble Already

Cross-posted at Ventura County Democrats

Fresh off winning by a sliver of a percentage point by pretending to be an “independent” with “green” credentials, Tony Strickland is already causing trouble.  In a move that will surprise absolutely no one but the moderate voters unfortunate enough to get suckered by Strickland’s con artistry, Strickland is already carrying water for his friends in the extremist Republican Yacht Party.

As California attempts to cut spending and raise revenues to avert a fiscal disaster, Tony “Independent Green” Strickland is standing once again to the right of his own Republican governor in insisting that the perfectly legal and eminently reasonable Democratic budget plan is somehow unconstitutional.  It matters little to Tony Strickland if California falls into the sea, economically speaking, so long as his corporate friends in the oil industry are taken care of.

From the VC Star:

The Constitution allows fees to be implemented by a majority vote and also allows lawmakers to pass tax measures that are revenue neutral with a simple majority. Democrats asserted their plan met both of those tests.

Anti-tax groups, with the support of GOP lawmakers, had vowed to challenge the plan in court had it been enacted.

Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, said the Democratic plan “circumvents the Constitution and the will of the people. I think they know it’s unconstitutional. If they really thought this could be done, it would have been done a long time ago.”

Despite the concerns of other Republicans, Schwarzenegger said he would have signed the Democratic bills had they included the economic stimulus provisions he is demanding.

In the end, both Schwarzenegger and Strickland are opposed the Democratic budget solution, but for different reasons.  Our own Pedro Nava is on point as usual about the ramifications of failure to pass this badly needed budget:

“If he doesn’t sign it, he needs to explain to the people of California about the 200,000 construction jobs that will be lost,” said Nava, whose district includes Ventura and much of Oxnard. “He needs to explain to the 200,000 people out of jobs why he doesn’t think he got enough of what he wanted.”   [snip]

“I am bewildered that Republicans fail to recognize the urgency,” he said. “This is like your house is on fire and you’re trying to put it out and the Republicans are objecting because you’re not using the right hose.”

For Republicans like Strickland, however, the entire point is to allow the house to burn down.  When you’re part of an extremist party interested only in draining the swamp and making government so small it can drown in a bathtub, bankrupting the State isn’t a bug–it’s a feature.  A feature explicitly designed to destroy progressive advances across the state.

And all this being done by a Yacht Party (with Tony Strickland as one of its premier captains) incapable coming close to majorities in either the State Senate or Assembly, and only capable of electing a governor by nominating a movie star in the wake of a trumped up recall election.

California Senate District 19 – can Dems take McClintock’s throne?

Tom McClintock is termed out in ’08 and the race to replace him is heating up.

Tony Strickland is a leading GOP candidate, with McClintock staffer Mike Stoker also in the running. Since the eastern portion of the district is seen as key to victory, other names mentioned include Simi Valley councilman Glen Becerra.  This promises to be a very ugly, expensive primary for the GOP.

Democrats are waking up to the possibility of  taking this seat away from the GOP and adding to their current majority in the State Senate.

GOP registration advantage has been slipping and is now just over 4%, including many liberal republicans in Santa Barbara. The problem area of the district is seen as the GOP strongholds of Simi Valley, Moorpark & Thousand Oaks.  We need a Democrat who can run strong in those areas.

Many Dems have been mentioned. Ventura Supervisor Steve Bennett, former Santa Barbara Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson and current Assemblyman Pedro Nava have said they’re not running or are leaning that way. They’re all from the Santa Barbara or the western part of the district.

My favorite possible candidate is Jim Dantona. We need to draft this guy to run! 

He ran for a Supervisor’s seat last year in the Simi Valley/Moorpark area, which only has 30% registered Democrats.  He is credited with unseating the longtime Republican incumbent in the June Primary, but unfortunately lost the  final in a bitter general election race to a well funded ultra-right candidate in November, by only 895 votes. In the end, Jim Dantona took 48.5% of the vote in a heavily gerrymandered GOP district. It’s clear that he received strong support from voters across the isle. 

Who is Jim Dantona?  Currently a legislative advocate and small business owner, Dantona was Senate Pro-Tem David Roberti’s Chief of Staff for 10 years in Sacramento.  A former major league baseball player and single father of 3, he taught & coached elementary school for 5 years, and has been involved in philanthropic projects in his community for over 20 years, including establishing the organization B.A.D. – Baseballers Against Drugs.

Strong on environmental issues, he’s been outspoken against Waste Management’s plan to triple the size of their landfill footprint in Simi Valley, and has consistently advocated for  stronger action against Boeing to protect families & the community from the Rocketdyne facility groundwater/site contamination. This area’s residents have been plagued by cancer clusters & a myriad of health problems for years. Dantona has been one of the few community leaders to consistently demand answers and action.

We need a strong candidate in this district who has proven he can appeal to voters across party lines, while maintaining Dem core values. 

We need to draft Jim Dantona.

Dantona 08: A home run for the 19th